Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> On 2/27/06, Gregory Seidman <gsslist+ruby / anthropohedron.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:12:22AM +0900, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
>>} Someone needs to make a "C++ for Ruby programmers" book. I'm getting
>>} assigned to work on a C++ project now and it's making me cry. Not
>>} only have I forgotten all of the C++ that I used to know, I actually
>>} have to compile stuff!
>>}
>>} I guess I should get more experienced in C++, as variety is good. But
>>} it's still painful.
>>
>>Think of the compiler as the interpreter, and templates as duck-typed Ruby.
>>Do as much as you can with meta-programming, since it should be comfortable
>>from a Ruby background. The rest... the rest is just syntax.
>>
>>} Joe
>>--Greg
>
>
> 1. Templates (that aren't in the STL) scare me.
They shouldn't. Read C++ Templates by Vandevoorde & Josuttis, and
you'll never want to delay anything until run-time again.
> 2. I've looked at the source code for the Boost library and ran away screaming.
Most people do. Boost is notoriously hard on compilers. Most C++ code
does not look like Boost. It does give you a tremendous amount of
functionality in one fell swoop, but you probably don't need it.
> 3. If I did write code like that, then not many people in my group
> would be able to easily grok my code. Perhaps they'll just need to
> bone up on the newest C++ stuff and read the requisite 8 books before
> touching my code.
1. You don't have to write code like that.
2. This "stuff" is not new.
3. Expecting the people who read your code to know the basics of the
language is not unreasonable, especially for such an incredibly
well-documented and standardized language.